Reasons for the gap: political perspective (part 1)

This course challenges you to consider how one might lift societies out of poverty while also mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. We explore the inherent complexity of developing country governments wanting to grow their economies in a climate friendly way. You will be introduced to an approach with which to address this challenge. The approach consists of a facilitated process whereby academic researchers and high-level influential actors within society co-produce knowledge. You will track this process in four Latin American countries - Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru, and South Africa. You will hear from various professionals about their contexts and the different challenges and opportunities the process includes.
This course will cover topics such as facilitation process techniques, energy modeling, scenario building, innovation and policy making. You will have the opportunity to respond to these topics with ideas and reflection from your own context. Whether you are a climate change practitioner, work in development or are simply curious about how climate mitigation is understood, this course will give you insights into the complexity of how countries from the South pursue development goals while addressing climate mitigation.
The course is free to enroll and take. You will be offered the option of purchasing a certificate of completion, which you become eligible for if you successfully complete the course requirements. This can be an excellent way of staying motivated! Financial Aid is also available.

RH

The course structure was very good and the real experience cases made the material look alive. Furthermore the essay writing part was very good, as practitioners had to get really involved.

PA

Apr 20, 2016

Filled StarFilled StarFilled StarFilled StarFilled Star

I found this course to be outstanding, in terms of: Interest, inspiration, technical content, stimulating new ideas, learning from other course participants, and general enjoyment.

从本节课中

Minding the mitigation gap

What happens when your best efforts are not good enough? We will look at the ‘gaps’ between where we would like to be and where we are.The direction emission trends are headed is a function of everything put into the model (such as population, growth and GDP, and technology). Yet what is required by science is driven by considerations such as how we need to reduce emissions to keep temperature rises below two degrees. This week, in exploring some of the potential reasons for this gap we consider technical reasons and other pushbacks, like vested-interests, political or inherent human behaviour.

教学方

Harald Winkler

Professor

脚本

On the political side, so there were lots of pushbacks that we received throughout the processes. And they were manifested in many different ways. I'm going to highlight three examples. The first one being conflicts of data. So it was, for certain datasets very difficult to agree on the value of certain variables. So some stakeholders would have a very clear view what was the accurate number. And some other stakeholders would completely oppose that. Basically, that is completely normal because as you know the data isn't there. So it is, one has to understand what the context is. So those conflicts of data just because someone is using more official data, the other is using more aggregated data, others are using more advanced methodologies, et cetera, could be hard to resolve. And many times, either they cause delays, so the research, the co-research team had to go and explore further datasets try to find a scientific way to realize what was the most appropriate or most accurate data set. Or many other times there was a compromise that had to be adopted in order to resolve that conflict and be able to move forward within the process. And we will see some examples from Colombia about conflicts of data. I was in charge together with Ramon Rosales and other researchers at Universidade de los Andes, to model the agriculture sector. When we started looking for the information, the data basis to model this sector, we found out that for cattle production, for livestock production, there were two different sources of information, both very important. One was from the ministry of agriculture, the second was from the livestock producers organization. Both data basis were very different and both were are relevant. So we started asking all the researchers. We started asking the stakeholders of the process which of the information we should use. The core team decided, the steering committee of the project decided to use the official information from the Ministry of Agriculture. But the problem with the selection is that these mitigation actions would be mostly implemented by the producers. So, the credibility of the results was threatened. It was very hard to get an agreement within the ministry that the process, the information and the results were credible, because of all these conflicts that happened. >> A second resistance is the contestation of the results. Especially as the results would emerge. So at the beginning, all the stakeholders would agree on which interventions, what is the growth rate, what is this what is that? But at some point, the figure, the picture, emerged, then you see the results. And then, obviously we have to remember there's some interest holders so It's not always win-win situations. So some sectors have to sacrifice something for some other sectors to be able to grow. As one could see the results and especially as the results were used to inform policy lots of condesation came to the results. >> The story began in July 3rd, 2014, when the results of phase one of PlanCC were publicly presented with the presence of the Minister of Environment, Deputy Minister from other, Ministers of the Steering Committee of the project, the representative from the private sector and Civil Society. It was a big event where results were presented. Basically 77 mitigation measures analyzed during two years of hard work and in a multi-stakeholder process and five mitigation scenarios that were also built during these two years of work. The results were well received, but a month after this presentation we had a problem. We had a strong reaction from CARI, which is the acronym for the Central Ashanika of the Inet River, which is indigenous community in the Amazon of Peru, and the Inet River is a river there. And they basically send a letter to the ministry and in the webpage, they were reacting strongly against one particular mitigation option presented there. That was number 12, which is the interconnection, energy interconnection, between Peru and Brazil. What was the reason of this strong reaction? Well the reason was that this Ashaninka community, the Ashaninka indigenous people, have been fighting since 2009 with particularly the government, to avoid building an electrical dam, hydro-electric dam in their territories. So it was a very important moment to talk and to exchange information and to dialogue and try to transform this conflict. And this is what we achieved because after this very open debate, we transformed this problem or failure into an opportunity for the project. And I'm very happy to report that beginning the second phase of PlanCC, we have the representatives from the Ashaninka community of the Inet River, being part of the group of stakeholders that are contributing with this project in order to achieve sustainable development and low emission development for Peru. Following the second phase of the PlanCC project.